After Bernie’s Win in Iowa, the Democratic Party Is Shitting Its Pants

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/bernie-sanders-dnc-tom-perez

Remember how Democrats spent the last 3 years insisting that some Russian social media posts swung the election and represented the gravest electoral interference imaginable? And now we have state party officials in Iowa *literally* changing vote totals.

The DNC would rather see Trump reelected than a Bernie Sanders presidency, even with all the structural limitations they could impose on him.

Published by rssllchndlr

Published

26 thoughts on “After Bernie’s Win in Iowa, the Democratic Party Is Shitting Its Pants”

  1. The Senate Intelligence Committee report, as well as the entire intel community had already said that.

    As far as “changing votes”, that remains ot be seen. However, with all of the confusion (ok call it what it is: clusterf*&^) with the caucus, there should be a re-canvass. Not to take anything away from Bernie, but to ensure ALL votes are counted in the manner they were cast. If Bernie wins then so be it. And ask Rick Santorum how Iowa worked out for him in 2016.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. “The DNC would rather see Trump reelected than a Bernie Sanders presidency”

      While I think Bernie would insure a trump re-election, it’s hard to take the original post seriously when it includes nonsense like this…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. You’re right, there’s definitely no history of the DNC’s hostility to Sanders. What’s going on in Iowa is completely above board. Nothing at all to see here. I’m glad the news isn’t covering “nonsense like this” and that the first independent voters will hear about it will be from the Republicans during the general.

        Like

        Reply

        1. @russell

          I took issue with your outlandish statement, not the obvious sentiment that the mainstream DNC doesn’t want him.

          An Iowa conspiracy theory doesn’t help your case either…

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. Jimmy, I do not believe Bernie Sanders can win; and, I say that because the word “SOCIALIST” is going to be in every single rally, interview, photo op – you name it – that ‘djt’ and his merry band of minions from Congress and on the grounds, that open their mouth. I’m no fan of Mr. Sanders, but that word will haunt his daily till election day. We’re seeing and hearing that it looks and sounds already.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. A Democrat has NEVER faced accusations of being a socialist from a Republican before. What ever will he do?

          They called Obama a socialist.
          They’ll call Mike Bloomberg, a lifelong republican a socialist. It’s what they do.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Obama bailout of the auto industry (because of the Great Recession) $12 billion

            Trump’s bailout of farmers (because of HIS tariffs) $28 billion

            Who is the bigger socialist?

            Like

        2. It matters not who the nominee is. DJT has changed the definition of Socialist” to mean Democrat. The sad part is, there is a minority of people in this country that believe every singe solitary m-fing word that comes out his mouth. No matter how many times the facts prove him a liar.

          Like

          Reply

  2. Bernie won in Iowa? Now that is news. Expected to draw up to 35%, he walks out a +/-0.1% win/place at 25%. You have a strange definition of winning. But then, Trump has told you what it means to win, so no surprise.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Yes, readers of this board and the now defunct Pilot comments section will all attest that I am famously deferential to the utterances of Donald Trump.

      You have all spent the last 3 years (correctly) bemoaning the absurdity of Clinton losing the election despite winning more overall votes than Trump. As of last reporting, Bernie got around 6,000 more votes than Pete and all of a sudden your concept of victory is different. What’s that about?

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’ve bemoaned Trump’s Electoral win, not Hillary’s loss. I bemoaned that both parties selected the ONLY two candidates that could have lost to the other.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. “As of last reporting, Bernie got around 6,000 more votes than Pete…”

        6,000 out of 200,000 would be a 3% margin. Reliable news sources (3 seconds ago) are still holding with a 0.1% difference.

        Trump tell you that too?

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. First, let’s do apples to apples. The ~6,000 figure represents popular vote. The .1% figure represents State Delegate Equivalent totals, the calculation of which has been riddled with arithmetic errors. The two numbers have little to do with one another, and that is the entire issue here.

          Like

          Reply

          1. As Hillary has shown, popular vote don’t count; only delegate equivalences do. Plus, Iowa uses a more intelligent popular vote technique that calls in 2nd choices. So, in the end, when the matrix is evaluated, 1,500 votes, not 6,000 was the margin.

            As my Pappy used to say, “Any fool can count the score in the middle of the game, but it takes a special fool to think it’s meaningful.”

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Am I the one citing “facts” (6,000 votes) that aren’t in the article? Plus, I don’t indulge in conspiracy theories. If the count is eff’ed up, it’s the totals. There is a paper trail and it is auditable.

            I don’t deny that Bernie won (close enough for corn plants), or that the DNC has it in for him, only that Bernie went in with polling indicating a much stronger finish and that Pete (I won’t even try to spell it and the spell-check doesn’t suggest it) was a stronger finisher than Biden.

            In fact my opinion, since that was opinion, is that if the DNC wants to stay centrist (like last time) they’d better stop trashing Pete and give him a little more up-talk.

            Biden ain’t pulling his chestnuts out of the low-country boil of South Carolina either.

            BTW, none of the Trumpettes ever did tell me how the 2012 RNC Iowa caucus was any less eff’ed up. Took them two weeks.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “I don’t deny that Bernie won (close enough for corn plants), or that the DNC has it in for him, only that Bernie went in with polling indicating a much stronger finish and that Pete (I won’t even try to spell it and the spell-check doesn’t suggest it) was a stronger finisher than Biden.”

            Unfortunately, we can’t know what the pre-caucus polling said since Pete’s campaign managed to scuttle its release too.

            Like

          7. If a poll is conducted and not all of the candidates are included, even by one person making the calls, then it can’t be an accurate poll. I would have lodged a complaint as well. That isn’t scuttling the pol. That is calling into questions its validity. And seeing as Buttigieg STILL finished much better than expected (I believe he was projected 4th going in), the “most consequential poll in politics” meant bupkes anyway.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. There are problems with survey data all the time. You’re never going to get perfect data. There are weights and smoothing formulas that are used in every statistical analysis. Not releasing what is supposed to be a huge survey because one caller forgot a name once or twice seems a bit drastic to me. Particularly when we look at how the caucus results were then released piecemeal. Then Tom Perez wants to change the way delegates are allocated once the start counting the “satellite caucuses” where Sanders cleaned up.

            If these were isolated incidents, people wouldn’t be so upset. But after 2016 and this is happening DAY ONE of actual voting, consider me suspicious.

            Like

          9. If the poll is not conducted properly, including all names of candidates running, then the validity of the poll is as accurate as a Trump stump speech. NEITHER should be released.

            Like

          10. In the end, I don’t peddle in conspiracies… well, this early in the game, it is fun Adam.

            But seriously, Russ, if you are a Republican and you want to save your party, then you’ve one choice, vote for the Democrat. Otherwise, really deferential, or just facetiously, to Trump and you’re stuck with him and your party is changed, and you are a Trumpette henceforth.

            Doing nothing is not an alternative for you.

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment